| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/27/2004 02:54:36 PM · #1 |
I got comments on this shot saying that the ceiling line hurt it. I started to remove it, then realized I wouldn't know where to stop (somewhere in the tree needles?), and wasn't sure how much would have been legal. I decided to submit it with it remaining, seems that was a bad decision.
Any comments? If I had removed it, where should I have stopped, and would it have been legal?
|
|
|
|
12/27/2004 02:58:13 PM · #2 |
I can't say for certain that it would have been allowed by a majority vote on SC, but I would have voted no DQ for it. I don't approve of entire backgrounds being replaced or re-created, but this wouldn't have constituted a "major element" of the photo for me, personally.
Message edited by author 2004-12-27 14:58:29. |
|
|
|
12/27/2004 03:00:24 PM · #3 |
It does seem to provide a small distraction. It woulld have been legal to remove it, it certainly is not a major element of the photo. In removing it, I'd go to the first branch.
|
|
|
|
12/27/2004 03:00:30 PM · #4 |
| Looks like it would have been easy enough to reshoot, then the background is a non-issue. |
|
|
|
12/27/2004 03:05:34 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Looks like it would have been easy enough to reshoot, then the background is a non-issue. |
Reshooting wouldn't be as easy as you think. I had the couch below the bell and the ceiling above the ribbbon and the bell itself is an incredibly reflective surface. I tried the bell in a dozen different positions around the tree, this one provided the least distracting reflection (what you're seeing on the bell is a reflection of the wall and, somehow, the crown molding making the white circle). I wanted the blank background of the bright window behind the bell too, but it would appear that the voters thought that also was a bad choice. Ah well. Still my 3rd best score yet.
|
|
|
|
12/27/2004 03:07:12 PM · #6 |
| The obvious answer would have been to reshoot it once you noticed that issue - but I don't know how reasonable that would have been. Barring that, I'm not sure I could do it, but some kind of vertical fade (from the bright at the bottom edge to the darker top) might have worked. Or turning it all bright (vertically to the top), going to the right to the ribbon, cropping so that needle just above the ribbon touches the edge of the shot, then fading into the gap between the needle and the ribbon, and also brightening the part inside the ribbon loop. For me, everthing to the right of the ribbon and needles is masked by the foreground, so I don't think anything on the right half necessarily needs to be touched. |
|
|
|
12/27/2004 03:10:59 PM · #7 |
| Put a posterboard or fabric behind the tree to hide the disracting background. You'd probably get better lighting as a bonus. |
|
|
|
12/27/2004 03:12:55 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Put a posterboard or fabric behind the tree to hide the disracting background. You'd probably get better lighting as a bonus. |
Duh! There's an idea I hadn't thought of. Thanks for that.
Message edited by author 2004-12-27 15:13:15.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/14/2025 10:11:53 PM EDT.
